Hit enter after type your search item

Lack of Communication: As I Lay Dying

/
/
/
19 Views

In accordance with the increasing influence of Modernist thought impacting American literature throughout the twentieth century, William Faulkner was willing to work out more experimental story strategies and designs. His novel that originated from this experimentation, As I Lay Perishing, is a testimony to his critique of humanity as hopelessly bad, yet unyielding, communicators. The heavily disjointed Bundren household, together with the handful of spectators and complete strangers who likewise occur to be a part of the burial of Addie Bundren, form a similarly disjointed patchwork of perspectives, viewpoints, longwinded internal monologues, and terse conversation. The resulting synthesized story is a literary panorama which exposes all of the overlapping layers and niches which create a comprehensive story of the Bundren family journey. Remarkably enough, this story of a dirt poor Southern household spending 5 days burying their dead mother is abundant and lively, including extreme emotional chaos and the screening of familial ties, all concealed within the particular characters’ minds and ideas. Eventually, the greatest catastrophe of As I Lay Perishing is not the death of Addie Bundren, however the suffering and resentment which the Bundrens go through as a result of their failure to communicate with each other, their true thoughts and reflections only narrated in their particular narrative sections.

Faulkner’s most considerable representation of mankind’s inability to really interact is his implementation of fifteen separate narrators over fifty-nine separate, overlapping narrative areas, freely displaying the misconceptions, misconceptions, and quiet reflections that directly result in all of the Bundren family’s public and individual issues. Each with their own distinct voice, desires, and worldly views, the different narrators of the novel are distinct and varied. The Bundren relative are especially divergent in their interaction styles. The only characteristic they share is that they decline to truly articulate themselves verbally to one another. All seven of the Bundrens nearly solely express themselves in the novel’s narrative through rich, individual psychological accounts of their impressions, feelings, and intentions which go largely unheard by the other members of the family. Money, for instance, is regularly overlooked and overlooked regardless of his fundamental levelheadedness. For instance: “I told them that if they desired it to lug and ride on a balance, they would need to” (165 ). Here, Cash is revealing his frustration at his family’s ignorance. Being the most logical and adept of the Bundrens, Money had actually easily foreseen difficulty at the crossing of the river, yet was completely overlooked by the entire household. Faulkner even goes as far as to end his narrative mid-sentence. Clearly, this act of sheer disrespect towards the storyteller mirrors the disrespect which Money receives when he attempts to interact. Rather than prevent disaster completely, the Bundrens’ deaf ears and deaf souls result in catastrophe; Money is swiftly isolated and subdued by both household blood and the hurrying river waters. The only one who earnestly hears Money is himself. This isolation is true for all of the particular storytellers within the novel. Each speaker is effectively remote within their own minds, depicted through their respective narrative sections. Development only occurs if there seems shared viewpoints amongst all this communicative obscurity. Cash elaborates on this concept in regards to Daryl’s imprisonment: “Often I aint so sho who’s got ere a right to say when a guy is crazy and when he aint. Sometimes I believe it aint none people pure crazy and aint none people pure sane till the balance people talks him that-a-way. It resembles it aint so much what a fellow does, however it’s the method the majority of folks is looking at him when he does it. Because Gem is too difficult on him” (233 ). Undoubtedly, Money concludes that peace of mind, and by connection all conceptions of truth and truth, are relative to the perspectives by which it is observed and interacted. Darl’s declaration of madness is just the outcome of other perspectives, like Gem’s and the rest of the family, subduing his own. This molding of what is thought about to be the Bundrens’ reality is exhibited by the labyrinth of individual narrative areas which actively bend and rewrite their story as it happens. Evidently, the technique by which mankind views and assesses fact is far too unpredictable and separated for any efficient interaction, particularly for the Bundrens. Moreover, Faulkner’s juxtaposition of rich, flowing stream of consciousness passages and the comparatively blunt vocal exchanges debases a large part of the small spoken interaction present in the book. The various narrative sections feature little conversation between the characters. However, when compared to the abundance of resonant internal monologues which form most of the story’s progression, these temporary outbursts of spoken word lose much of their importance. For example, as several of the older guys of the unique gather around Money and discuss his very first damaged leg, 2 noticeably different discussions, one internal and one external, are visible. Tull remarks, probably in his mind, “I don’t mind the folks falling. It’s the cotton and corn I mind. Neither does Peabody mind the folks falling. How bout it, Doc?” (90 ). Here, Tull in a near jocular manner, disregards Money’s three-story fall from atop a church. He asserts that his and Peabody’s professions take precedence over Money’s leg just moments, in reality, after Armstid had actually discussed the potential of Money being bed-ridden since of the mishap. The difference in between these 2 declarations is that Armstid had actually spoken aloud and Tull had kept his true ideas to himself. Tull then goes off riding on a loose, streaming narrative which Faulkner takes the effort to totally italicize, indicating an acute separation in between Tull’s ideas and the actual discussion at hand. In this particular minute, Tull is an example of how strongly the characters in the novel protect their inner ideas from those who may be listening. As an outcome of this behavior, the huge shops of genuine reflections are changed into hollow bits and pieces of discussion. This is barely sufficient communication for a family in crisis and leads to lots of deadly errors and misconceptions. Finally, Faulkner’s terminating review against communication in the novel originates from Addie’s bitter critique of language, the lorry by which all interaction has actually thus far been established. In her only standing narrative section, Addie Bundren assaults using words as a genuine approach of communication. Especially, when referring to Anse and the word “love,” she spits, “I knew that word was like the others: simply a shape to fill a lack; that when the correct time came, you would not require a word for that any longer than for pride or fear,” (171 ). To Addie, words never quite “fit” the idea or emotion which they try to contain and symbolize, and can easily be disposed of as quickly as they stop working to urge the concept to which they refer. In this instance, the word “love” fails Addie in multiple respects as she laments over her life which obviously lacked love entirely. Subsequently, the word loses all indicating to her. However, Addie’s disappointment over this single word holds solid ground as a universal argument against interaction between humanity as a whole. Words such as “love” are simple hollow representations of the concrete idea and actualization of love, the interaction of earnest idea and feeling by means of vessels which do not have the effect and feeling necessary is unsuccessful. Regrettably, the Bundrens are just able to communicate with the help of weak words. Yet, doing not have the experience and tangibility required to communicate their ideas adequately, all attempts of communication simply fizzle out. In spite of being separated in idea, the Bundrens and fellow narrators act, though obliviously, as a cohesive unit that informs the story of Addie Bundren in shocking detail. Segmented into personalized narrative areas, Faulkner’s web of perspectives and characters forms a synthesis of thought which entirely lacks communication. As such, the Bundrens’ failure, or perhaps failure, to interact was the ultimate source of their problems.

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar